<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23hirsch.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/opinion/23hirsch.html</a> </p>
<p>"Better-defined standards in history, science, literature and the arts combined with knowledge-based reading tests would encourage the schools to conceive the whole course of study as a reading curriculum exactly what a good knowledge-based curriculum should be."</p>
<p>Thanks for the article.</p>
<p>Uh... While I agree that some degree of vocabulary and background knowledge is necessary and definitely helpful, I've always thought that at the end of the day that reading really was a skill. I thought the point of reading was to be able to learn about unfamiliar things and pickup new vocabulary. </p>
<p>Though I will admit that the knowledge deficits of students at disadvantaged schools/areas are almost certainly worse than I can understand and that quite possibly I take a lot of background info. for granted.</p>
<p>Hmm...</p>
<p>Thanks for the comments. I'm still thinking about whether or not I agree with the author's claim about skill transference in reading.</p>
<p>How could background knowledge NOT be important? I have always scored in the 99.9th percentile on reading tests and yet when I am reading material that I am very unfamiliar with, say articles about dark energy or baseball, my comprehension and pace slow to a crawl.
I have seen the awful "No Child Left Behind" proficiency tests that my children take and the reading passages would bore even the most dutiful test-taker. I remember one endless passage about a basket that was passed on from grandmother to grandchild that was so convoluted and tedious that I couldn't finish it.
I think the author is really on to something about these tests.</p>
<p>Reading is both based upon skill level and knowledge to the subject being addressed. I don't believe one can do well solely based on one of these criteria. For testing purposes, it's harder to understand the students reading proficiency if subject matter is completely foreign to them. Comprehension is easier when you can relate what you are reading to facts that you already know to be true. If the subjects you're reading are completely unrelated to the knowledge you already possess then it is going to be twice as hard and time consuming to figure out what terms are being used, how they are used in context, and how they apply to the general meaning of the passage.</p>
<p>I do a lot of reading so my knowledge base on certain subjects is more board that those that read a specific genre. I believe that it's more efficient for schools to require reading that has a multitude of subjects ranging from historical to futuristic. This way students will learn how to tackle terms that are out of their knowledge base before they are asked to demonstrate these skills on a test. That's a huge disadvantage that I saw in my school when they'd simply teach literature from a specific century that almost always had the same terminology, vocabulary, and plot/message.</p>
<p>Besides, if you don't know much about the subject it's harder to become engrossed in its message. Reading is only delightful when you can comprehend the message without excessive re-reading.</p>
<p>I completely disagree with the author of the article. When it comes to what we learn from our early education (everything up to and including liberal arts colleges), it doesn't really matter what the actual content is of what we learn, but the skills and the ideas we derive from it. A majority (probably a great majority) of the content that we learn has absolutely no relevance to the career that we will end up holding as adults. Our early education is varied, and no matter what job we pick, it is much more narrow (and deep) in terms of content. I'll never find a legitimate use for the Lagrange error bound (Math teacher: you're doing your homework outside without a calculator and you need to approximate e^2 to three decimal places and you use a Talyor polynomial to do so but want to know how far you need to go to be accurate enough), but it helped to hone my math skills and understanding of general mathematic principles. I don't care about finding the magnitude of an electric field emanating from an infinite plane—you can't even have an infinite plane in real life—but learning about using calculus in physics and learning the general principles that govern science is very important. I don't remember the details of the Qing, Ming, and Han dynasties, but I did learn about the general foundations around which civilizations are built. I do not remember the content of all the novels I've read, but they've honed my reading and writing skills.</p>
<p>My point is that these tests shouldn't be content-based because we really don't care if the kids learn the content or not. It doesn't matter when it comes to finding a profession. It's about having the skills.</p>
<p>I personally think that tests should test for skill, not content. Teachers should be able to vary the content, not have a nationwide curriculum with pointless standards and exact content requirements, as long as the learning helps children to develop the skills they need.</p>
<p>What the article centers around—finding the main point of an article—is very important. Reading offers the best opportunity to learn content. If we already know the content, why bother reading? To learn more content without being spoonfed, we must have the skills to understand what we read.</p>
<p>No, teachers should not teach to the test. They should teach to allow their students to develop necessary skills.</p>
<p>Yeah, I totally disagree with the author calling skills like finding the main point of a passage "test taking skills." Sure they'll help you do well on a test, but that's because they're valuable life-long skill. </p>
<p>You know, it's ironic. The author is so concerned with teachers teaching nothing more than "test taking strategies" that he fails to realize that his suggestion would force teachers nationwide to teach to some test.</p>
<p>I completely agree with everything WMHS said, except for the career part. The skills derived are helpful for growth and self-enrichment, not just a career.</p>
<p>Ditto from above: The skill is to comprehend unfamiliar topics AND familiar ones, not just the latter. Good readers can do both and bad ones cannot. </p>
<p>Oh, the hubris of poor test takers...</p>
<p>i think the way that the SAT made us to study its reading strategies be4 hand was really helpful for the future reading.</p>